In Brown, K, Pillay, J, Hampson, K, & Brandon, P (Eds ...eprints.qut.edu.au/15284/1/c15284.pdf · In Brown, K, Pillay, J, Hampson, K, & Brandon, P (Eds.) Clients Driving ... to the

This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/acceptedfor publication in the following source:

Mayze, Brett & Bradley, Lisa(2008)Safety culture: a multilevel assessment tool for the construction industry.In Brown, K, Pillay, J, Hampson, K, & Brandon, P (Eds.) Clients DrivingConstruction Innovation: Benefiting from Innovation.CRC Construction Innovation, Australia, Queensland, Brisbane, pp. 1-24.

This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/15284/

c© Copyright 2008 (please consult author)

This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under aCreative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use andthat permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu-ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then referto the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog-nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe thatthis work infringes copyright please provide details by email to [email protected]

Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record(i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub-mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) canbe identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear-ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Mayze,_Brett.html

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Bradley,_Lisa.html

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/15284/

QUT Digital Repository: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/

Mayze, Brett R. and Bradley, Lisa M. (2008) Safety culture : a multilevel assessment tool for the construction industry. In: Third International Conference of the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Construction Innovation – Clients Driving Innovation: Benefiting from Innovation, 12-14 March 2008, Gold Coast, Queensland.

© Copyright 2008 [please consult author]

Safety Culture: A Multilevel Assessment Tool For The Construction Industry

CLIENTS DRIVING INNOVATION: BENEFITING FROM INNOVATION

Full Paper

SAFETY CULTURE: A MULTILEVEL ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY Brett Mayze CRC Construction Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Australia [email protected] Lisa Bradley Queensland University of Technology, Australia [email protected] ABSTRACT Traditional approaches to safety improvement often target specific audiences or single organisational levels, yet studies have long recognised the benefits of addressing interventions at multiple levels simultaneously (e.g. Hofmann & Stetzer, 1996). However, there is little empirical research that has actually investigated organisational (or in the current study worksite or project) level effects (Hofmann & Tetrick, 2003) and even fewer that have included these in considering multiple levels for improving individual’s health and safety (Zohar & Luria, 2005). Furthermore, “safety culture” a concept increasingly being held liable for many workplace incidents and injuries, is derived by interactions across multiple levels of the organisational social system (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Accordingly, safety culture remains ill defined, and associated empirical safety research exploring antecedents of safety performance remains an underdeveloped area in the management literature (e.g. Cooper, 2000). Extending a model proposed by Neal and Griffin (2004), and using a sample of one of Australia’s largest construction contracting organisations, the current research provides some insight into aspects of safety culture and its effects on individual’s engagement in unsafe work practices. Development of the research model, its assessment and the findings from this study hold important implications for the construction industry at a time when lag indicators for reporting OH&S effectiveness are increasingly viewed as restrictive in providing feedback on proactive risk management strategies. Therefore it is the purpose of this paper to investigate the construct of safety culture in the construction industry, by identifying predictors of individual’s safety behaviour across multiple levels and considering these in light of actual safety performance. This paper addresses contemporary research and assessment to enable the identification of culturally specific lead indicators for construction organisations to better manage key workplace characteristics demonstrated to be influential on individual’s engagement with safe work practices. Keywords: Safety Culture, OH&S, Construction Industry, Measurement

Clients Driving Innovation: Benefiting from Innovation 1


SAFETY CULTURE: A MULTILEVEL ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY There are inherent risks in the building and construction industry, with contractors, subcontractors and their personnel all needing to actively manage workplace hazards to maximise worker safety and prevent injuries and deaths. The incident rate for fatalities in the Australian construction industry is almost twice the rate of other Australian industries (ASACC, 2007). In addition to fatalities, the incidence of injury in Australian building and construction, while declining, remains about 50% higher than the all industry average (Cole, 2003) with the industry recording the 4th highest level of reported non fatal injuries behind mining, manufacturing and transport. However, despite the size of the construction industry, approximately 9% of all employed persons in Australia (ASACC, 2007), and the significance of these safety concerns, organisational behaviour (OB) literature has typically not focused on safety for this industry within Australia or internationally. Occupational health and safety remains one of the least studied phenomena in organisational behaviour, with estimates suggesting it represents less than 1% of the total amount of published research (Campbell, Daft, & Hulin, 1982; Zacharatos, Barling, & Iverson, 2005). A MODEL OF SAFETY PERFORMANCE Current research into the measurement of workplace safety often doesn’t incorporate the complex relationships that impact on individuals in the workplace. The present paper outlines a model (see Figure 1) that incorporates the individual, the influence of supervisors, and the workplace on a range of important safety outcomes. The proposed model draws on a framework provided by Neal and Griffin (2004) which examined the work environment and individual antecedents of safety outcomes. The model is expanded to incorporate the worksite level and additional antecedents important to safety performance. A brief overview of the components of the model and reason for their inclusion precedes the derivation of the measures used to assess the model. The aim of this study was to test the model’s newly developed measures. Initial evidence from this study indicates the measures capture the model and that the model is showing interesting relationships between the variables. ANTECEDENTS OF SAFETY: WORKSITE Safety Culture The term safety culture is generally used to explain how safety is placed as a priority, which is reflected in decisions and policies and filters down through these into every aspect of operational performance. However, Cooper (2000 p.119) notes that “a literature search reveals that very few models of organisational safety culture exist,” Likewise Watson, Scott, Bishop and Turnbeaugh (2005) further suggest that the concept of safety culture is lacking a reliable and valid approach to its theoretical and conceptual definition. While the few existing models of safety culture have often implied influence across multiple organisational levels, the majority have aggregated their findings to a single level of analysis or concentrated on within level measures. Many studies have recognised the potential group effects on individual’s health and safety, however, there is little empirical research that has actually investigated cross level affects (Hofmann & Tetrick, 2003).



Mearns and Flin (1999) suggest that safety cultures, like the determinants of safety values and norms, are relatively enduring. Furthermore given the centrality of values and norms to the concept of culture, the present model defines safety culture by safety values and safety norms. However, Ajzen (1991) reported that situational factors that intercede between safety values and safety behaviour are likely to influence the relationship. The most strongly held beliefs cannot be translated into behaviour without an environment or climate that enables the behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). As such safety climate is often considered a distinct yet subordinate of the broader concept of safety culture and presents a sensible starting point for the factors that may potentially contribute or directly relate to a safety focused culture (Guldenmund, 2000; Schneider, 1990; Zohar, 2003). Safety Climate Safety climate represents a combination of what organisational members perceive is happening within the organisation and how they feel about that (Schein, 1992). Safety climate plays an important role in the realisation of desired safety behaviours and performance (Griffin & Neal, 2000; Zohar, 1980). However, climate is an emergent property, characterising groups of individuals. Operationally, it is assessed by aggregating individual perceptions to the required unit of analysis (organisation, work site, team/crew), and using the mean to represent the climate for that entity (Reichers & Schneider, 1990). However, the aggregation of individual perceptions averages out individual and subgroup variation, and has often been used with inconsistent frames of reference across studies. This aggregation of psychological constructs has been posed by Clarke (2006), as a possible explanation of the failure to find a strong influence of safety climate on accident involvement. The various studies into safety climate and culture have seemingly failed to consistently distinguish between measures of safety perceptions (commonly safety climate studies) and measures of safety attitudes (commonly safety culture studies) (Clarke, 2006). Furthermore, Clarke (2006) suggests that there are additional disregarded factors which will influence the effect of attitudes on behaviour, and suggests that including normative safety beliefs will add to the discriminate power of safety attitudes in explaining individual’s safety behaviours at work. Safety Performance As opposed to self report, accident and injury data have often been employed as a criterion measure (Griffin & Neal, 2000; Mearns, Whitaker, & Flin, 2003; Silva, Lima, & Baptista, 2004; Zohar, 2000) and Clarke (1998) suggests that a reduction in accident and incident rates provides the best measure of a positive safety culture. Yet, accident data as a measure of safety performance has often been criticised (e.g. McKenna & Glendon, 1995) as amongst other shortcomings it doesn’t provide a means to evaluate risk exposure and is often insensitive as incidents are so rare (Glendon & Litherland, 2001). More recently, however proactive safety measures such as number of safety audits and inspections conducted, the frequency of communication events; and the percentage of workers receiving OHS training are receiving greater organisational utilisation (NOHSC, 2005). At a worksite level the incorporation of these proactive indices with traditional safety performance measures will be employed to help assess the model. Accordingly, the current model includes measures of both subjective perceptions of worksite safety practices and worksite behavioural safety norms as well as objective measures of worksite level safety performance.



ANTECEDENT OF SAFETY: INDIVIDUAL While safety culture implies an organisation-wide influence on individual behaviour, individual behaviour has a reciprocal affect on organisational culture (Schein, 1992). To gain a complete picture of influences on safety outcomes, individual antecedents are also included in the model to provide greater understanding of the dynamics that govern the exchange between the individual employee and the workplace. Perceived Organisational Support Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, and Sowa (1986) suggested that employees form a global belief concerning the extent to which the organisation values their contributions and cares about their well-being. They coined this perceived organisational support (POS). High levels of POS are thought to create obligations within individuals to repay the organisation. The interrelationship between perceived organisational support and safety is illustrated in how perceived safety violations can undermine trust in the employment relationship. There does not appear to be previous research that has explored the link between POS and safety performance. Personal Safety Values It is important to consider both individual values and group values in their influence on safety outcomes. Thygerson (1992) notes that accident prevention is highly correlated to one’s sense of values. A person facing a novel situation, such as commencing work on a new job site, or undertaking new tasks associated with a job, will often experience higher unintentional injury rates (Thygerson, 1992). Similarly Crowe (1995) reported that individual safety values are a better predictor than the combination of gender, class standing, and demographic region in determining an individual’s safety practices. Personality Factor analyses of the relationships between personality and risk taking suggest that personality profiles can be used to predict risk orientation (Nicholson, Soane, Fenton-O'Creevy, & Willman, 2005). Wagenaar (1992) reports occupational accidents are often characterised by a lack of conscious risk taking. Therefore it would follow that personality should predict both individual safety compliance and participation, however only a handful of studies have examined this relationship. A meta review by Clarke and Robertson (2005), which included a criterion measure of accident data and at least one personality measure from the Five Factor Model of Personality (FFM), concluded that regardless of context individuals low in agreeableness and low in conscientiousness are more liable to be accident-involved. Also that personality measures of conscientiousness, agreeableness and neuroticism were valid and generalisable predictors of accident involvement (Clarke & Robertson, 2005). Safety Orientation Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager (1993) propose that there are only three determinants of individual performance: knowledge, skill, and motivation. Safety performance, therefore, must be determined by knowledge and skills necessary for particular behaviours and by the motivation of individuals to perform the behaviours (Neal & Griffin, 2004). Personal-safety orientation, a latent variable determined by safety knowledge and safety motivation (Zacharatos et al., 2005), has been found to mediate the relationship between perceptions of safety and safety behaviour (Neal et al., 2000).



Safety Behaviour It has been suggested that behavioural data are superior to accident statistics as they focus on unsafe behaviour prior to incidents occurring (Reber, Wallin, & Duhon, 1989; Zohar & Luria, 2003). Individual safety behaviours relevant to the workplace can be conceptualised in the same way as other work behaviours that constitute work performance. In this way, safety behaviour in the workplace can be divided in two major components: task behaviour and contextual behaviour (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Griffin & Neal, 2000). Task or safety compliance behaviour, describes the core safety activities that need to be carried out by individuals to maintain workplace safety (Neal & Griffin, 2002; Simard & Marchand, 1994; Williams, Turner, & Parker, 2000). These behaviours may include, for example, wearing personal protective equipment and ensuring and adhering to current and accurate work statement methods. In contrast, contextual or safety initiative, refers to behaviours in which workers are not simply working within safety standards, but go beyond compliance and act proactively to improve safety in their environment. (Simard & Marchand, 1994; Williams et al., 2000) Neal & Griffin (2002) define safety initiative behaviours as participating in voluntary safety activities or innovation for safety improvement. Supplementing the previous worksite level measures the individual antecedents discussed (perceived organisational support, personal safety values, personality, individual safety orientation and safety behaviour) have also been identified as important in the organisational safety literature and are integral to the model. METHOD The survey was developed to assess individual’s own attitudes, values, and behaviours related to workplace safety and their perceptions about safety related worksite group norms and practices. To investigate the relationships between these variables the survey instrument needed to clearly delineate between belief based constructs. Such a survey was not directly available from the literature, and the development of appropriately distinct measures was the primary aim of this study. Participants Surveys were distributed on three construction sites across Australia. From the 188 surveys distributed, the overall response rate for the study was 55%. Most of the respondents were male (92 males, 5 females), and were 17 to 64 years old (mean age 38.5 years). The education levels varied with 27% of respondents having completed up to year 10, 15% completing up to year 12, 30% had completed a trade and 16% had completed a certificate, the remaining respondents had completed a variety of other qualifications. Average role tenure was 12.3 years, organisation tenure was 4 years, and construction industry tenure was 13.6 years. The respondents were predominantly subcontractors (60%), while 40% were direct employees of the organisation. Measures The worker survey assessed the following components;



Behavioural norms of safety compliance and behavioural norms of safety initiative - measured used three items each adapted and extended from the safety norms of co-workers scale by Watson et al. (2005) (alpha = .76). Worksite safety perceptions – including communication and planning (5 items), safety training (4 items), systems and procedures (3 items) from Neal, Griffin and Hart (2000) with alpha coefficients of .93, and a fourth dimension of work pressures from Seo (2005) with an alpha coefficient of .88. Perceived organisational support - assessed using the eight -item measure of the Survey of Perceived Organisational Support that has a Cronbach's alpha of .90 (Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, & Lynch, 1997). Personal safety values - measured seven items based on work by Crowe (1995) and Maierhofer & Griffin (2002). Personal attitudes towards risk and behavioural control - attitudes towards risk were assessed using four items adapted from Dedobbeleer and Beland (1991) and Watson, Scott, Bishop and Turnbeaugh (2005). While attitudes towards behavioural control were assessed using four items adapted from Dedobbeleer and Beland (1991) and Williamson, Feyer, Cairns & Biancotti (1997). These were developed using subject matter experts for wording and practical relevance in accordance with the theory of planned behaviour using the framework provided by Ajzen (2002). Personality - specifically agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism were assessed using Saucier’s (1994) Mini-Markers. Each of the personality variables were assessed using eight items. The Mini-Marker has been used widely in a range of settings and has demonstrated strong correlations with the NEO–Five-Factor Inventory (Mooradian & Nezlek, 1996) Safety orientation – was assessed by the two measures of safety knowledge and safety motivation. Safety knowledge assessed the extent to which employees felt knowledgeable about safety and was assessed with four items from Neal et al. (2000). Safety motivation assesses effort and interest in personal safety at work and was measured using four items (Neal et al., 2000). Safety behaviour - was assessed using measures of safety compliance and safety initiative as described by Neal et al. (2000). Seven items from both Neal et al. (2000) and Williams et al. (2000) were combined to measure safety compliance with some items adapted for the construction setting. Safety initiative was measured with eight items from Turner and Parker (2004). Safety performance - incident, injury and safety data were collated for the worksites being surveyed and presented as six different indices, as described in Table 1. Procedure Batches of surveys were sent to safety managers on each worksite. These managers handed out the surveys personally during team meetings and canvassed site personnel to participate. Safety managers were available for survey related questions, though the questionnaires were self explanatory. Upon completion individual surveys were sealed in a reply paid return envelope that was provided and either returned them to the Safety Manager or placed directly into the mail.



RESULTS Survey Participation The overall response rate for the study was 55%, however the response rates varied across worksites with 50% response from worksite 1 (N=20), 49% from worksite 2: (N=52), and 78% from worksite 3 (N=32). Scales Scores Inspection of the means, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis scores reveals some potential ceiling effects in some measures. These are expected values in the population and the impact of these are likely to be lower with a larger sample size (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996 p.73) The previously developed measures all had alpha coefficients that were similar to previous findings and all demonstrated acceptable internal consistency of the items. For the newly developed items all except one measure also produced good internal consistency (see Table 2). Attitudes towards risk control had an alpha coefficient of .59 indicating that the items weren’t assessing the same construct. A correlation matrix for the measures is also displayed in Table 3 showing the inter-correlations between the variables. Inspection of the correlations reveals some of the measures are strongly correlated. Factor Analysis An exploratory factor analysis was undertaken to establish if the attitude, behaviour, norm and value measures were distinguishable from each other in assessing differing aspects of safety. The factor analysis results are encouraging with a small sample (see Table 4). The first factor had all seven safety value items loading on it, along with three cross loaded safety initiate behaviour items. Factors two and three captured the safety compliance behaviour and safety initiative behaviours measures respectively. Factor four encapsulated both the safety norm items for initiative and compliance. The two types of norms loaded onto the same factor and despite being strongly correlated (r=.649, p<.01) in subsequent regression results they produce a pattern of results consistent with the predicted model. The items for attitudes towards worksite risk loaded on their own factor, factor five, while factor six captured the majority of the attitude to risk control items, though one item cross loaded on the attitude to worksite risk factor. Factor seven has an interesting array of items loading on it, with two of these providing unique loadings and the other three all cross loaded. Mediated Regression A mediated regression was performed for each of the outcome measures (self-report safety compliance behaviour and self-reported safety initiative behaviour). Norms, attitudes, values, and personality were entered into the regression in the first step, followed by the mediators of safety knowledge and safety motivation on the second. The results for the regression of the independent variables onto safety compliance behaviour mediated by safety knowledge and safety motivation appear in Table . The value of personal safety responsibility and the personality trait of conscientiousness were fully mediated by safety orientation (safety knowledge and safety motivation).



Safety compliance norms were direct predictors of safety compliance behaviour. The model predicted 70% of the variance in safety compliance behaviours (F=15.95, p<.05, df =98). The second mediated regression examined the dependent variable of safety initiative behaviour (see Table 6). Again the value of personal safety responsibility and the personality trait of conscientiousness were mediated by safety orientation (safety knowledge and safety motivation). Neuroticism (which was negatively associated with the mediators) was also fully mediated in its relationship with safety initiative behaviour. Safety training had a direct negative relationship with safety initiative behaviour, indicating greater safety training was associated in less frequent participation in safety initiative

ehaviour. Attitudes to risk control and safety initiative norms also had a direct, but ehaviour.

stems and procedures, ommunication and planning, and the highest levels of support from the organisation,

ility values, and safety motivation.

l support, ork pressures, and safety initiative norms were significantly different between the

ble 9 provides the worksite means for these measures.

ability of the attitude, value and normative measures to predict the ehavioural measures in this small sample provides a guide to the predictive validity

erences being used responding to the items, self and other. Additional items need to be developed that

are more focused to improve these measures in future research.

bpositive link to safety initiative b Worksite Safety Information Worksite safety data were also collected from safety records held in the organisation for six months prior to the survey completion (see Table ). When the three worksites are compared, the site with the lowest total reportable injury frequency rate, total near miss frequency rate, least work pressure and that reported fewer workplace hazards, also rated the most positively perceived safety sycpersonal safety responsib Worksite Comparisons The ANOVAs in Table 8 tested for significant differences between worksites for the measures tested in the study. Results indicate that perceived organisationawthree worksites. Ta DISCUSSION The sample size for this study was not sufficient to conduct a full test of the research model. However the main aim of the study was to assess the reliability and test the newly developed items and those modified for the construction industry. This was achieved and the bof the measures. Though the sample size was not sufficient to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis, the factor loadings from an exploratory factor analysis suggest that the items are distinguishable and present to the respondents in a manner consistent with their inclusion on their respective scales. A few exceptions can be noted with some cross loadings and appropriate adjustments to be made to augment some measures. The safety initiative behaviour measure had the highest number of cross loaded items, all of which loaded on the value measure. This suggests that these items may not sufficiently allow respondents to discriminate how important the initiative behaviour is versus how often it is performed. Also the cross loading of attitudes towards risk control leads to the conclusion that there may be two points of refin



Both the compliance and initiative norms loaded on the same factor, suggesting that these tap into the same measure (social norms in this case) indicating that these measures don’t discriminate between compliance and initiative. This result maybe attributable to the small sample size, previously discussed as a concern in conducting this factor analysis, although it is curious. It could be that some of the items identified as initiative are considered compliant practices within the subject organisation. However, further analysis demonstrated that the measure of safety initiative norms significantly differed across the three sample worksites, and that regression analysis found that compliance norm predicted compliance behaviour

ee Table 5) whereas initiative norm predicted initiative behaviour (see

ese measured behaviours or practices that are considered organisationally

d measures differentiate between belief based onstructs, to allow independent assessment of respondent’s values, attitudes,

nd norms. Furthermore the measures assessed explained a significant

the construction industry to proactively intervene and prevent an accident rather than simply reacting to safety statistics after the event, represents major advance in risk management practices. Results suggest that the

fine ent the measures used to assess the research model in the current study ill enable organisations to identify their own specific levers to most effectively drive eir unique safety culture.

(s Table 6). Furthermore, closer inspection of the items that loaded on factor seven suggest thatthdesirable or carry some expectation of observance rather than behaviours that are considered conforming or innovative. The development of the measures displayed sound reliability (see Table 2), with high levels of internal consistency. The alpha coefficients ranged from 0.80 to 0.92. Exceptions to these results were for the measures of neuroticism (0.70), safety compliance norms (0.77) and attitudes towards risk control (0.59). Apart from neuroticism these other two measures require refinement. The measures also had good discriminant validity as shown in the factor analysis (see Table 4), and predictive validity (see Table 5 and Table 6). New measures were also tested for face and content validity with safety managers. Based on these findings adjustments to the measures for future studies should include the addition of items to the existing scales for, safety initiative behaviour, attitudes to workplace risk, and the compliance and initiative norms. The findings suggest the proposecperceptions, aportion of the variance in individual’s safety behaviours and observation suggest on first impressions that they also proportionally trend with actual site safety performance. Conclusion Enabling organisations in

a m ofre

wth





Figure 1. Multilevel model of safety in the construction industry.

Leadership

etSafe

mier b

y Performance

cordable accidents ss incidents of worksite safety audits reaches and penalties

• Total r• Near • Numb• OH&S

Safety Percep

• Safety communicatio g • Safety systems & pro• Safety training • Work pressures

tions n & plannincedures

Personality Trai

• Agreeableness • Conscientiousness • Neuroticism

ts

Perceived OrganSupport

isational

Personal Va

• Personal respon

lues sibility

riSafety O ty Knoty Mo

entation

wledge tivation

• Safe• Safe

Behavioural SNorms

• Norms of safety co• Norms of safety init

afety

mpliance iative

Safety Behaviour

Safety Compliance Safety Initiative

••

Components of Workplace Safety Culture

WWoorrkk SS

WWoo

ii

rr vv

ttee LLeevv

kkeerr LLee

eell

eell

Perceived Worksite Leadership Attributes

• Perceived responsibility values • Perceived leadership skills • Perceived safety specific

transformational leadership • Perceived commitment to safety

Worksite Leadership Attributes

• Supervisor’s personal responsibility values

• Supervisor’s leadership skills • Supervisor’s safety specific

transformational leadership • Supervisor’s commitment to safety

Personal Atti

• Control (Fatalis• Risk

tudes m)

Safety Outcomes



Table 1 Incident, Injury and Safety Indices

1. e d e c r T - e f al recorded unsafe incidents on site. This figure includes personal injury and incidents (e.g. lost time injuries, fatalities, medical treatment injuries, alternate work injuries, first aid injuries, etc) property damage and environmental events,

ented per one million (1,000,000) hours worked on site.

2. e M R R r s

3. Frequency of Communications Events - the number of hours worked between

nication event (such as tool box talks, pre-starts, etc) r the six months prior to the survey.

n n s tween h i

its Conducted - The total number of worksite safety audits conducted on over the six months prior to the survey.

ards Reported - the total number of worksite safety hazards reported and rded on site over the six months prior to the survey.

Total R cor abl In ident F equency Rate ( RIFR) Th number o tot

pres

Totamis

l Nes p

ar er o

issne m

Freillio

quenn (1,

cy 000,

ate000)

(TN hou

MFrs w

) - orke

Thed on

num site

ber.

of recorded nea

each work site commuove Freqeac

4.

5.

6.

uen wo

cy ork s

f Wte sa

orksfety

ite I insp

speectio

ction ov

s - er the six months prior to t

the number of hour wohe s

rkedurve

bey.

Audsite Hazreco



ness, Kurtosis and Alpha Coefficient Scores for Variables

Variable anda Devia n ewne Kurtosis Alpha Coefficient

Table 2 Mean, Standard Deviation, Skew

Mean St rd tio Sk ss

Perceived Organisational Support 3.32 0.68 -0.06 -0.06 .81

Perceived Communication and Planning 3.80 0.74 -0.21 -0.57 .84

3.54 0.87 -0.11 -0.66 .86

s and Procedures .3 0.83 -0.21 -0.13 .84

.2 0.97 0.13 -0.75 .90

on – Safe .2 0.56 -0.74 1.03 .80

e o .5 -2.53 10.43 .88

fety C n .2 -1.30 4.04 .92

afety In e 3.8 -0.30 0.81 .90

3.8 1.32 .88

Personality Trait - Conscientiousn 4.11 1.42 .84

3.89 .70

mpliance Norm 3.82 .77

3.7 8 82

V l Safety Res sibil 4.5 6 0

A e R .1 0 6 81

Risk Control 3.10 0.66 -0.35 0.22 .59

Perceived Safety Training

Perceived Safety System 3 9

Perceived Work Pressure 3 0

Safety Orientati ty Knowledge 4 5

Safety Orientation – Saf ty Motivati n 4 8 0.62

Safety Behaviour – Sa omplia ce 4 9 0.65

Safety Behaviour – S itiativ 4 0.70

Personality Trait - Agreeableness 5 0.83 -0.91

ess 0.70 -0.96

Personality Trait – Neuroticism 0.94 1.97 9.90

Safety Co 0.78 -0.57 0.21

Safety Initiative Norm 3 0.78 -0.23 -0.4 .

alue of Persona pon ity 3 0.53 -1.03 0.3 .9

ttitudes Towards Worksit isk 3 3 0.99 .12 -0.4 .

Attitudes Towards




Table 3 Correlations between Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1 Safety Compliance Norm

2 Safety Initiative Norm .649**

3 Communication & Planning .366** .503**

4 Safety Systems & Procedures .418** .608** .684**

5 Safety Training .318** .515** .683** .646**

6 Pressures Work .211* .343** .316** .288** .410** 7 Perceived Organisational

Support .224* .293** .672** .553** .548** .240* 8 Value of Personal Safety

Responsibility .380** .347** .308** .272** .328** .232* .251*

9 Attitudes to Risk Control .146 .217* .054 .163 .144 .020 -.031 -.136

10 tudes to Worksite Risk Atti .138 .131 .088 .045 .117 .553** .108 .273** -.142

11 Agreeableness .324** .338** .370** .372** .317** .236* .244* .288** -.071 .142

12 Conscientiousness .062 .136 .179 .149 .212* .128 .237* .211* -.037 .075 .503**

13 Neuroticism .196 .206* .090 .036 .131 .057 .036 .139 .061 .150 .557** .473**

14 Safety Knowledge .317** .279** .156 .314** .271** .125 .225* .444** .084 .013 .365** .490** .133

15 ety Motivation Saf .230* .249* .252* .252* .253* .122 .239* .418** .034 .039 .425** .444** .369** .563**

16 Safety Compliance Behaviour .414** .415** .361** .431** .342** .289** .338** .454** .042 .149 .495** .429** .230* .611** .775**

17 Safety Initiative Behaviour .436** .501** .361** .429** .272** .254* .253* .330** .278** .054 .339** .352** .081 .555** .484** .668**

** .01, * p <.05 p <


Table 4 Factor Loadings for Items

Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Safety compliance norm 1 .268 .074 .143 .400 -.178 .379 -.451

afety compliance norm 2 .104 .138 .238 .787 -.07S 2 .115 -.118

fety compliance norm 3 .249 .070 Sa .235 .726 -.032 .158 -.051

tiative norm 1 .058 .072 .268 Safety ini .765 -.097 .131 .134

Safety initiative norm 2 .216 .088 .184 .828 -.077 .051

Saf .088 .205 .144

-.006

ety initiative norm 3 .745 -. 051 .111

Saf .061

042 -.

ety compliance behaviour 1 .8 .022 .103 -.127 20 .036 .036 Saf -.097 ety compliance behaviour 2 .8 .070 -.028 .047 Safety complian .146

04 .142 -.059 ce behaviour 3 .6 .109 .045 .070

Safety complian .259

58 .157 -.234 ce behaviour 4 .77 .098 -.070 -.045

Saf .214

4 .093 -.024 ety compliance behaviour 5 .767 .078 .246 -.136 -.105 -.011

Saf iour 6 .294 ety compliance behav .72 .203 -.031 .072 Saf .280

5 -.004 -.040 ety compliance behaviour 7 .73 .292 -.095 .111

Attit .048 -.08 2 -.186

2 -.096 -.159

udes to worksite risk 1 1 -.11 .832 .150 -.141

Attitudes to worksite risk 2 -.081 -.0 .000 42 -.150 .531 .358 .483

Attit 3 -.030 -.187 .050 -.002 udes to worksite risk .846 -.002 .054

Attit -.246 -.1 3 .004 udes to worksite risk 4 86 .16 .765 .035 .155

Attitudes towards risk control 1 -.146 -.0 .146 31 .211 .105 .688 .081 Attit .215 -.0 .092 udes towards risk control 2 89 .088 .108 .708 .118 Attitudes towards risk control .183 .15 -.168 3 8 .228 .442 .423 -.204 Attit .006 -.170 .110 -.072 .141 .368 udes towards risk control 4 .461

ersonal responsibility 1 Value of p .744 .248 .273 .096 -.002 .045 -.084

Valu ility 2 e of personal responsib .822 .166 .298 .073 -.036 .002

Valu bility 3 -.013

e of personal responsi .818 .093 .304 .117 .000 .004

lue of personal responsibility 4 -.054

Va .788 .153 .356 .159 -.105 -.089 .060

alue of personal responsibility 5 V .572 .235 .105 .337 -.039 .059 .500

al responsibility 6 Value of person .733 .28 .093 .174 .111

e of personal responsibility 7 0 .015 -.045

Valu .715 . .27 .120 -.131

ety initiative behaviour 1 .144 .376 .225 -.187 .047

080 .296 3 -.028

Saf .250 .542 viour 2 Safety initiative beha .407 .123 .447 .319 .067 .227 .327

Safety initiative behaviour 3 .437 .136 .444 .324 -.112 .270 .339 iative behaviour 4 Safety init .475 .122 .680 .155 -.076 -.057 .116

behaviour 5 .177 .027 Safety initiative .800 .152 .036 .208 -.019 iative behaviour 6 .239 .050 Safety init .788 .209 .122 .134 -.019 iative behaviour 7 .275 .126 Safety init .734 .201 -.046 .218 .052

Safety initiative behaviour 8 .281 .058 .703 .102 .058 -.027 .068

Percentage of variance explained by factor 15.08 13.09 11.66 11.37 7.68 5.52 4.66



Motivation Table 5 Regression of IVs onto Self-Reported Safety Compliance Behaviour Mediated by Safety Knowledge and Safety

Step 1 Step 2

Beta Beta Step 1

Safety Compliance Norm .175 .161*

Safety Initiative Norm - -

- -

-

-.001

** 1

.031 .004

Communication & Planning .062 .014

Safety Training -.077 -.071

Safety Systems & Procedures .186 .103

Work Pressures .100 .076

Perceived Organisational Support .106 .065

Value of Personal Safety Responsibility .222* .047

Agreeableness .182 .075

Conscientiousness .220*

Neuroticism .081 .033

Attitudes to Worksite Risk -.041 .064

Attitudes to Risk Control .070 .008

Step 2

Safety Knowledge .182*

Safety Motivation .597*

Adjusted R2 .385 .696

F 5.727 5.95**

df 98 98 * p<.05, ** p<.01



TSafety Kno

able 6 Regression of IVs onto Self-Reported Safety Initiative Behaviour Mediated by wledge and Safety Motivation

Step 1 Step 2

B BStep 1

eta

eta

Safety Compliance Norm .118 .093

Initiativ m .230

Communication & Planning .139 .202

Traini -.2

Safety Systems & Procedures .137 .069

.1

Perceived Organisational Support -.025 -.045

Value of Personal Safety Responsibility .199* .029

Agreeableness .107 .039

Conscientiousness .339** .177

Neuroticism -.224* -.198

Attitudes to Worksite Risk -.080 -.017

Attitudes to Risk Control .258** .217**

Step 2

Safety Knowledge .231*

Safety Motivation .237*

Adjusted R2 .403 .484

F 6.10 7.13

Df 98 98

Safety e Nor .242*

Safety ng 50* -.259*

Work Pressures 29 .114

* p<.05, ** p<.01



Table 7 Worksite safety information.

Reportable

Injury

To

Fre

cy unicati

Fre ncy of W k te Ins tions

i Conduc d

Hazards Reported

Total

Frequency Rate

tal Near uenMiss FreqCommquency

Rate Events

of ons

queor

pecsi Aud ts

te

Worksite 1 62.6 2313 .9

20.9 .5

5 243 62

Worksite 2 191.2 233.2 93.9152.4

28

73.6 135.1 .7

154

Worksite 3 73.6 2 1 81

13 76



T

able 8 ANOVAs for w parisons

AN

orksite com

OVA

Sum of Squares df

MeSquare F Sig.

an

Between Groups 7 2 3 4.49 0.01*3.8 1.9WitTot

hin Groups 2 97 3 anisational

al 9 99 n & Planning ween Groups 6 2 3 2.28 0.11

41.845.6

0.4Perceived OrgSupport

Communicatio Bet 2.4 1.2 Within Groups 52.90 98 0.54

Total 55.36 100 afety Training Between Groups 1.35 2 0.67 0.89 0.41

S

Within Groups 73.99 98 0.76 Total 75.34 100

ms & Between Groups 1.69 2 0.84 1.21 0.30

Safety SysteProcedures Within Groups 68.01 98 0.69 Total 69.69 100 Work Pressures Between Groups 5.58 2 2.79 3.12 0.04* Within Groups 87.58 98 0.89 Total 93.15 100 Safety Compliance Norm Between Groups 1.57 2 0.78 1.31 0.27 Within Groups 58.77 98 0.60 Total 60.34 100 Safety Initiative Norm Between Groups 4.85 2 2.42 4.27 0.02* Within Groups 55.60 98 0.57 Total 60.45 100 Values personal responsibility Between Groups 0.15 2 0.07 0.22 0.80 Within Groups 32.15 98 0.33 Total 32.30 100 Attitudes to Worksite Risk Between Groups 3.80 2 1.90 1.96 0.15 Within Groups 94.88 98 0.97 Total 98.68 100 Attitudes to Risk Control Between Groups 0.93 2 0.46 1.06 0.35 Within Groups 42.94 98 0.44 Total 43.87 100 Safety Knowledge Between Groups 0.24 2 0.12 0.38 0.68 Within Groups 30.99 98 0.32 Total 31.24 100 Safety Motivation Between Groups 0.07 2 0.03 0.08 0.92 Within Groups 38.09 98 0.39 Total 38.15 100 Safety Compliance Between Groups 0.07 2 0.03 0.08 0.92 Within Groups 42.47 98 0.43 Total 42.54 100 Safety Initiative Between Groups 1.33 2 0.67 1.36 0.26 Within Groups 48.00 98 0.49 Total 49.33 100

Examination of the mean values for each of the self-report measures for the statistically significant group differences are listed in Table 9.



Table 9 Mean worker self-reports a

ggregated by worksite.

s

norm

Perceived organisational support

Work pressure

Safety initiative

Worksite 1 3.71 2.84 3.75

Works ite 2 3.19 3.14 3.90

Worksite 3 3.32 3.05 3.38



REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.

Ajzen, I. (2002). Constructing a TpB Questionnaire: Conceptual and Methodological Considerations. Retrieved September, 2002, from http://www.people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf

ASACC, (2007). Priority Industry Information Sheet: Construction [Electronic Version]. Statistical Data and Reports. Retrieved 11/10/07 from http://www.ascc.gov.au/ascc/AboutUs/Publications/StatReports/.

Borman include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman & , W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to

Associates (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71-98). SaFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

n

Campbell, J. P., Daft, R. L., & Hulin, C. L. (1982). What to study: generating and developing research questions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

ell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1Campb 993). A Theory of Performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35-69). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

S. (1998). Safety culture on the UClarke, K railway network. Work and Stress, 12(3), 285-292.

Clarke, S. (2006). Contrasting perceptual, attitudinal and dispositional approaches to accident involvement in the workplace. Safety Science, 44(6), 537-550.

Clarke,ent in occupational and non-

occupational settings. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology

S., & Robertson, I. T. (2005). A meta-analytic review of the Big Five personality factors and accident involvem

,

Cole, T. R. H. (2003). Final report of the Royal Commission into the Building and

78(3), 355-376.

Construction Industry. from http://www.royalcombci.gov.au/hearings/reports.asp

Cooper, M. D. (2000). Towards a model of safety culture. Safety Science, 36(2), 111-

Crowe, J. W. (1995). Safety values and safe practices among college students.

136.

Journal of Safety Research, 26(3), 187-195.

Dedobbeleer, N., & Beland, F. (1991). A safety climate measure for construction sites. Journal of Safety Research, 22, 97 - 103.

EisenbOrganizational Support, Discretionary Treatment, and Job Satisfaction. erger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived

Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 812-820.



Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507.

uction. Safety Science

Glendon, A. I., & Litherland, D. K. (2001). Safety climate factors, group differences,and safety behaviours in road constr , 39, 157 - 188.

rk for

chology

Griffin, M. A., & Neal, A. (2000). Perceptions of Safety at Work: A FramewoLinking Safety Climate to Safety Performance, Knowledge, and Motivation. Journal of Occupational Health Psy , 5(3), 347-358.

Guldenmund, F. W. (2000). The nature of safety culture: a review of theory and research. Safety Science, 34(1-3), 215-257.

Hofmann, D. A., & Stetzer, A. (1996). A cross-level investigation of factors influeunsafe behaviors and acciden

ncing ts. Personnel Psychology, 49(2), 307.

Hofmann, D. A., & Tetrick, L. E. (2003). Health and safety in organizations : a multilevel perspective (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA :: Jossey-Bass,.

h Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J.

Kline & S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in

Kozlowski, S. W., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and researcin organizations:

organizations (pp. 3-90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Maierhofer, N. I., & Griffin, M. A. (2002). Investigating the link between work values and work behaviours. Paper presented at the International Congress of Applied Psychology, Singapore.

McKenna, E. F., & Glendon, A. I. (1995). Human safety and risk management.

Mearns, K., Whitaker, S. M., & Flin, R. (2003). Safety climate, safety management e

(Vol. 41, pp. 641-680): Elsevier Science.

Mearns re

London: Chapman & Hall.

practice and safety performance in offshore environments., Safety Scienc

, K. J., & Flin, R. (1999). Assessing the state of organizational safety - Cultuor climate? Current Psychology, 18(1), 5-17.

Mooradian, T. A., & Nezlek, J. B. (1996). Comparing the NEO-FFI and Saucier's Mini-Markers as measures of the Big Five. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(2), 213-215.

Neal, A n ., & Griffin, M. A. (2002). Safety climate and safety behaviour. AustraliaJournal of Management, 27, 67.

Neal, A., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Safety climate and safety at work. In J. BarR. Frone (Eds.),

ling & M. Psychology of workplace safety. (pp. 15-34): American

Psychological Association.

Neal, A., Griffin, M. A., & Hart, P. M. (2000). The impact of organizational climate on safety climate and individual behavior. Safety Science, 34(1-3), 99-109.

Nicholson, N., Soane, E., Fenton-O'Creevy, M., & Willman, P. (2005). Personality and domain-specific risk taking. Journal of Risk Research, 8(2), 157-176.



NOHSC. (2005). Standards and OHS Legal Obligations. Retrieved 28 November, 2005, from http://www.nohsc.gov.au/

Reber, R. A., Wallin, J. A., & Duhon, D. L. (1989). Safety programs that work. The Personnel Administrator, 34(9), 66.

Reichers, A., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and Culture: An evolution of constructs. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

p 5-

Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-Markers: A brief version of Goldberg's unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63(3), 506-516.

, E. (1992). Schein ulture and leadershipOrganizational c (2nd Edition ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schneider, B. (1990). Organizational climate and culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Seo, D. C. (2005). An explicative model of unsafe work behavior. Safety Science, 43(3), 187-211.

Silva, S., Lima, M. L., & Baptista, C. (2004). OSCI: an organisational and safety climate inventory. Safety Science, 42(3), 205-220.

Simard, M., & Marchand, A. (1994). The behaviour of first-line supervisors in accident prevention and effectiveness in occupational safety. Safety Science, 17(3), 169-185.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins College Publishers.

Thygerson, A. L. (1992). Safety (2d ed.). Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Turner, N., & Parker, S. K. (2004). The effect of teamwork on safety processes and outcomes. In J. Barling & M. R. Frone (Eds.), The psychology of workplace safety. (pp. 35-62): American Psychological Association.

Wagenaar, W. (1992). Risk-taking and accident causation. In J. F. Yates (Ed.), Risk-taking behaviour. Chichester: Wiley.

Watson, G. W., Scott, D., Bishop, J., & Turnbeaugh, T. (2005). Dimensions of interpersonal relationships and safety in the steel industry. Journal of Business & Psychology, 19(3), 303-318.

Williams, H., Turner, N., & Parker, S. K. (2000). The compensatory role of transformational leadership in promoting safety behaviors. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Toronto, Canada.

Williamson, A. M., Feyer, A.-M., Cairns, D., & Biancotti, D. (1997). The development of a measure of safety climate: The role of safety perceptions and attitudes. Safety Science, 25(1-3), 15-27.

Zacharatos, A., Barling, J., & Iverson, R. D. (2005). High-performance work systems and occupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 77-93.




54BZohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: theoretical and applied implications. UJournal of Applied PsychologyU, 65, 96-102.

55BZohar, D. (2000). A group-level model of safety climate: Testing the effect of group climate on microaccidents in manufacturing jobs. UJournal of Applied PsychologyU, 85(4), 587.

56BZohar, D. (2003). Safety climate: Conceptual and measurement issues. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), UHandbook of occupational health psychology. U (pp. 123-142). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

57BZohar, D., & Luria, G. (2003). The use of supervisory practices as leverage to improve safety behavior: A cross-level intervention model. UJournal of Safety Research U, 34(5), 567-577.

58BZohar, D., & Luria, G. (2005). A multilevel model of safety climate: cross-level relationships between organization and group-level climates. UJournal of Applied PsychologyU, 90(4), 616-628.

Documents

In Brown, K, Pillay, J, Hampson, K, & Brandon, P (Eds ...eprints.qut.edu.au/15284/1/c15284.pdf · In Brown, K, Pillay, J, Hampson, K, & Brandon, P (Eds.) Clients Driving ... to the